Also the fucking context of that 47% comment. It was insanely stupid to say it that way, but their is some truth to the statement. The number probably isn't 47% (that is just the 0 net income tax number), but people are looking for free stuff, it just is what it is...

Fucking pubs gotta get off some of these social issues. It is just killing the party. I support some of that stuff, but not to the extent of losing elections. Just like the 47% comment was utilized to dehumanize Romney, so is the "take away women's rights" bullshit, if we only could... Blacks and hispanics too! Just as likely, and would allwed us to win.

"When a man with money meets a man with experience, the man with experience leaves with money and the man with money leaves with experience."

Cerebral_DownTime wrote:You should have "Craftsman" tattooed on your forehead, because you're a tool guaranteed for life.

I have a good example of progress. Ohio's unemployement system began making people who file claims online input the jobs (2) they have applied for; leaving them blank prevents you from filing the claim. In the past this wasn't even required, and the warning that they would check in to make sure was toothless. Along with the change was increased enforcement in the "work application audit". This has driven UEC rates down across the board.

So this could be translated to the food stamp program. I don't know the exact metric they could use, but instead of people promoting the program to increase enrollment they could utilize those employees for enforcement. Totally anecdotal but everyone I have ever met on food stamps was gaming the system. This is probably because those are the type that promote their "smerts" while those on it for legitimate reasons aren't so proud. Again, totally anecdotal.

I think unemployed people collecting welfare should be required to fill out a certain number of job applications per month and get interviews for jobs. And i'd have someone follow up on these folks to make sure they're not intentionally sabotaging the interview.

^Exactly what it was in theory for YEARS. It wasn't until like 1 year ago before they put teeth into the program. It was essentially a gift to construction unions, but since we are making progress I'll check my angst.

This is such a simple process. Enforce rules, eliminate waste, and expect efficiency. Now imagine if we applied it to DoD!!!!!

You know how badly I'd luv to fucking audit that bitch? The feds have the resources to pull this off it takes ball sack and leadership. Both parties just find it too easy to punt and band-aid. Placatin' the simple fools.

"When a man with money meets a man with experience, the man with experience leaves with money and the man with money leaves with experience."

btw it was 2 for each week claimed. You also had "were supposed" to keep a log. In essence the "helping hand" of the government should be the absolute last resort. Not the easiest route. I know, I've been there, cue JB.

"When a man with money meets a man with experience, the man with experience leaves with money and the man with money leaves with experience."

Orenthal wrote:Also the fucking context of that 47% comment. It was insanely stupid to say it that way, but their is some truth to the statement. The number probably isn't 47% (that is just the 0 net income tax number), but people are looking for free stuff, it just is what it is...

Fucking pubs gotta get off some of these social issues. It is just killing the party. I support some of that stuff, but not to the extent of losing elections. Just like the 47% comment was utilized to dehumanize Romney, so is the "take away women's rights" bullshit, if we only could... Blacks and hispanics too! Just as likely, and would allwed us to win.

Well Mitt's "self deportation" thing probably didn't go over well with the Hispanic community.

Orenthal wrote:^Exactly what it was in theory for YEARS. It wasn't until like 1 year ago before they put teeth into the program. It was essentially a gift to construction unions, but since we are making progress I'll check my angst.

This is such a simple process. Enforce rules, eliminate waste, and expect efficiency. Now imagine if we applied it to DoD!!!!!

You know how badly I'd luv to fucking audit that bitch? The feds have the resources to pull this off it takes ball sack and leadership. Both parties just find it too easy to punt and band-aid. Placatin' the simple fools.

I don't care if they have to take a part time job at McDonalds, some work is better than no work. I got no problem continuing giving assistance to those who make an effort.

^^Gets back to playing way too hard to the base. It was just as stupid when Howard Dean lost his mind. Those people are not voting for Obama under any circumstance, why go so hard for them? Then again, I'm guilty as hell, pushing for anyone but Romney during the primary. Holy shit the bloodbath any of those suckers would have been against Obama. Nice concession by Mittens.

Fucking Hispanics and Blacks are so much more conservative than the Democrats too. Ugh, fucking Republicans!

Last edited by Orenthal on Wed Nov 07, 2012 6:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

"When a man with money meets a man with experience, the man with experience leaves with money and the man with money leaves with experience."

Orenthal wrote:^Exactly what it was in theory for YEARS. It wasn't until like 1 year ago before they put teeth into the program. It was essentially a gift to construction unions, but since we are making progress I'll check my angst.

This is such a simple process. Enforce rules, eliminate waste, and expect efficiency. Now imagine if we applied it to DoD!!!!!

You know how badly I'd luv to fucking audit that bitch? The feds have the resources to pull this off it takes ball sack and leadership. Both parties just find it too easy to punt and band-aid. Placatin' the simple fools.

I don't care if they have to take a part time job at McDonalds, some work is better than no work. I got no problem continuing giving assistance to those who make an effort.

That is also built into the system, I won't bore you with the details, but it needs reformed. The process should encourage that, however, it actually fosters under the table or outright not claiming 1099 income. Small steps.

"When a man with money meets a man with experience, the man with experience leaves with money and the man with money leaves with experience."

To piggy back a bit of OJ post above. For section 8rs, we should stipulate a minimum % of rent that the resident is responsible for. IIRC right now there is no such provision, or it must be very low. Friend of mine was visited from a section 8 prospect not long ago. Women knocked once and walked right into his home, as she was assuming his was the house up for "grabs". She handed him her paper work (after he said WTF are you doing in my house) and as he realized she was harmless he read it. Her responsibility on $800/month, was $25. That is completely unacceptable. Maybe make it a 25%.

Also anyone receiving any significant amount of welfare for an extended period of time must complete a home ec/personal finance class, something they reimburse the administrator for.

Separating the truly needy from the bullshitters is key.

As for the self deportation comments by Romney, that just goes to show you how dumb some of those people are. That is the exact strategy the GWB admin went with after the country told him to stick his amnesty up his ass, and it has been effective to some extent.

Criminals in this town used to believe in things...honor, respect."I heard your dog is sick, so bought you this shovel"

Orenthal wrote:Section 8 is hard for me to understand. Rent is guaranteed and renter gets something they cannot afford. Huh? Good idea to completely remove risk from a transaction...???

It is a bit confusing. In a nutshell it is a voucher program, and at the EOD it is up to the renter on how they want the assistance. Going 100% toward the rent if they chose to live in a higher rent place, OR (and this is what really irks/surprises me) they can go with a low rent place and keep the difference. Now I may have that wrong so don't hold me to it, but if I am correct, then WTF???

For landlords and their units to participate in the program, the rent must be reasonable. The tenants may choose a home with a higher rent than the FMR, in which case they would pay the landlord the difference themselves, or they may choose a lower cost rental and keep the difference. GoSection8.com helps tenants by providing free access to all of our listings information via our online database as well as by calling us toll free at 1-866-466-SEC8 (7328).

Also I heard, have not researched yet, that section 8 rent is increasing (due to last night) but the FEDS are expected to be picking up that increase. So tell me exactly what the point of that is? No incentive for the renter to change their housing situation, but we're going to increase the cost to the govt?

I'm sorry CDT, there are just too many people eating MY Big Kahuna burger and washing it down with MY tasty beverage.

Criminals in this town used to believe in things...honor, respect."I heard your dog is sick, so bought you this shovel"

No. And the day any of you show half a clue what goes into affordable housing (LIHTC or Subsidized) I'll faint from sheer amazement.

Section 8 is a minimilistic program that costs the country very little and is extremely hard to qualify for (from a development standpoint) and LIHTC programs is the single most successful gov't assistance program in history.

Not to mention that you have Syndicators like my firm that have about $10 billion in affordable investments (closed $330MM in new affordable investments this year) that allow these programs to succeed as both a gov't assistance program and a private sector investment program.

But please, start discussing them, because I could REALLY use a laugh.

e0y2e3 wrote:Watching you idiots try to discuss Section eight could amuse me for days. Carry on and then please try LIHTC please. Lulz for months.

I already admitted I really do not understand. That is a cue for someone to explain. I can surf the net for days doesn't give me the ability to explain it quickly or with authority. What good comes from giving a person a subsidy on rent? Other than allowing them to live somewhere they wouldn't be able to afford otherwise. What are the qualifications? Is it a reward for something?

I understand welfare, food stamps, and unemployment as temporary help or for the diabled, but rent?

And, no, the majority of the risk isn't taken on by private firms (mainly Banks, Wall Street and Insurance companies)!!!

Nope, the gov't gives people free rent, that isn't tied to very restrictive income levels and eats all the risk!!!!!

KILL THE HOMELESS!!!

Honestly, there is no point in trying to explain how programs work like this to people like you and FUDU who spend time discussing things before you actually have any idea what they are or how they work.

I mean fuck, LIHTC is one of about one programs that is actually supported by Republicans and Democrats in DC (because "FREE RENT!!!!"!)

It's just that if you think promising free rent for the fifteensish years the program exists a a development for families with a set income level promotes people to "turn toward to gov't for FREE RENT!!!" when in reality it provides a temporary (15 years for LIHTC, Section 8 can vary) development solution with rigorous income checks, compliancy checks and everything else (a foreclosure with LIHTC results in recaptured tax credits).

And the program ONLY works if you find developers that can meet the ridiculous HUD criteria and the LIHTC criteria and then you find large institutions that will trade cash to the developers for the tax breaks.

Frankly (especially with tax credits), private industry has to take on almost all of the risk in these deals. The gov't is shielded and the gov't subsidies are literally pumped right back into the economy via tax breaks for corporations or cash flows (this only really happens with section 8 and only if a property settles in at a subsidy level way higher than underwritten). Things get really hairy when GIANT BANK A realizes they have no tax liability for the next decade and sells $100,000,000 worth of interests in funds at $1.11 per tax credit.... etc.

If you really want to learn start researching syndication and how it works, but with your preconceived notions about programs that are actually EXTREMELY free market I don't expect anything to change your mind (nor will I be wasting any more words typing on it).

Providing a subsidy that protects broke ass people from being homeless or in unlivable places while pushing private industry to partake and spend is the ultimate example of a proper subsidy program, thus the Republicans love LIHTC and to a lesser degree Section 8 (seriously, it is really effin hard for developers to get an maintain Section 8 subsidies from HUD).

Or you could kill the obscenely wealthy and move the homeless into those places. There are more options than I originally thought. Killing the obscenely wealthy, voiding their wills and sending everything through probate and inheritance taxes sounds promising, no?

What about the Georgia model for UE benefits? BO wanted to adopt that, no? Did it die on the vine or was it implemented? Rather than just accept the GA aid and then leave the state when it ran out it would theoretically give people a few years to get their shit back on track?

You do understand the unemployment is paid by companies. The more people you lay-off the more you pay, etc. This happens to try and dilute the cost because you have shit companies like Sale Jobs that have insane turnover and then you have stable companies that shouldn't be eating the cost.

I have no problem with shitty ass sales companies paying out their asses for laying people off.

And you, dipshit, how about you hire 6-more cleaning folks and reception people and provide them benefits and an livable hourly wage?

If you won't, why not? Really want to know.

Right now I work at 2 offices. Between them we employ a staff of around 20 employees between front desk, hygiene, and assistant. They all receive health benefits. We outsource the cleaning to a private company. I'm not sure about their policy.

And you, dipshit, how about you hire 6-more cleaning folks and reception people and provide them benefits and an livable hourly wage?

If you won't, why not? Really want to know.

Right now I work at 2 offices. Between them we employ a staff of around 20 employees between front desk, hygiene, and assistant. They all receive health benefits. We outsource the cleaning to a private company. I'm not sure about their policy.

Why not increase those front desk, hygiene and and assistants to 25-30? That's what I'm asking.

e0y2e3 wrote:You do understand the unemployment is paid by companies. The more people you lay-off the more you pay, etc. This happens to try and dilute the cost because you have shit companies like Sale Jobs that have insane turnover and then you have stable companies that shouldn't be eating the cost.

I have no problem with shitty ass sales companies paying out their asses for laying people off.

Right. It stops there. What companies pay in those types of 'benefits' and 'programs' never affects the people working for the companies.

I know when the new healthcare and benefits law went into affect Progressive just sucked it up. Nothing changed. Didn't cost me another dime. Never got additional charges for working spouse and it my coverages stayed the same price with the same level of coverage.

It's a vacuum, not something that affects anything else.

I do wonder if the hundreds of regional insurance carriers who closed also paid into that sytem?

And you, dipshit, how about you hire 6-more cleaning folks and reception people and provide them benefits and an livable hourly wage?

If you won't, why not? Really want to know.

Right now I work at 2 offices. Between them we employ a staff of around 20 employees between front desk, hygiene, and assistant. They all receive health benefits. We outsource the cleaning to a private company. I'm not sure about their policy.

Why not increase those front desk, hygiene and and assistants to 25-30? That's what I'm asking.

We don't need more staff right now. If we get busier, we will. I'm not understanding your point.

And you, dipshit, how about you hire 6-more cleaning folks and reception people and provide them benefits and an livable hourly wage?

If you won't, why not? Really want to know.

Right now I work at 2 offices. Between them we employ a staff of around 20 employees between front desk, hygiene, and assistant. They all receive health benefits. We outsource the cleaning to a private company. I'm not sure about their policy.

Why not increase those front desk, hygiene and and assistants to 25-30? That's what I'm asking.

We don't need more staff right now. If we get busier, we will. I'm not understanding your point.

But there are people without jobs. People who are hurting. Not sure why businesses that bring in revenues aren't helping them.

e0y2e3 wrote:You do understand the unemployment is paid by companies. The more people you lay-off the more you pay, etc. This happens to try and dilute the cost because you have shit companies like Sale Jobs that have insane turnover and then you have stable companies that shouldn't be eating the cost.

I have no problem with shitty ass sales companies paying out their asses for laying people off.

Right. It stops there. What companies pay in those types of 'benefits' and 'programs' never affects the people working for the companies.

I know when the new healthcare and benefits law went into affect Progressive just sucked it up. Nothing changed. Didn't cost me another dime. Never got additional charges for working spouse and it my coverages stayed the same price with the same level of coverage.

It's a vacuum, not something that affects anything else.

I do wonder if the hundreds of regional insurance carriers who closed also paid into that sytem?

I guess I don't understand, if you make enough and end up unemployed you pay for Cobra, if not you don't and regardless that has nothing to do with that fact that I have zero issues with high turnover companies struggling to operate more than stable companies. If you operate in a field or a manner that forces you to lay-off a large number of works you should be burdened with extra costs and tasks.

The point is companies that pay for the UEB and and the healthcare benefits have less cake to feed other people. The fact the companis paying for something does not at all mean that the employees or persective employees are not affected. It's quite the opposite. Likewise, maybe the higher costs of benefits means less spent on technology or R&D or Work/Life balance initiatives for current employees. If it comes out of company coffers that simply doesn't mean the employees skate by.

And why doesn't moscratcher's company not just hire more staff? Is it because they can't afford to bring on more salary and more benefits when their revenues are fixed and they're not bringing in the requisite money to pay for all those new people?

How is it different with the government? There's not enough money allocated or available yet the programs continue. Moscratcher's business would die after a certain time of paying out benefits without bringing in the revenues to pay for them.

Why do we ask government to do the same thing or at least not require they re-allocate the amount of dollars they do have to areas where they want to spend it? Simply put, it's not a sustainable financial model. Not just not a sustainable business model, but not a sustainable financial model period. Clearly.

Beg, borrow and steal until when? When's that note come due? Not just due, but truly and ultimately due. Better be borrowing from someone you can just destroy at some point.

All the social programs and bailing out industries? Oy vey dude.

e0y2e3 wrote:

peeker643 wrote:

e0y2e3 wrote:You do understand the unemployment is paid by companies. The more people you lay-off the more you pay, etc. This happens to try and dilute the cost because you have shit companies like Sale Jobs that have insane turnover and then you have stable companies that shouldn't be eating the cost.

I have no problem with shitty ass sales companies paying out their asses for laying people off.

Right. It stops there. What companies pay in those types of 'benefits' and 'programs' never affects the people working for the companies.

I know when the new healthcare and benefits law went into affect Progressive just sucked it up. Nothing changed. Didn't cost me another dime. Never got additional charges for working spouse and it my coverages stayed the same price with the same level of coverage.

It's a vacuum, not something that affects anything else.

I do wonder if the hundreds of regional insurance carriers who closed also paid into that sytem?

I guess I don't understand, if you make enough and end up unemployed you pay for Cobra, if not you don't and regardless that has nothing to do with that fact that I have zero issues with high turnover companies struggling to operate more than stable companies. If you operate in a field or a manner that forces you to lay-off a large number of works you should be burdened with extra costs and tasks.

Peeker, when companies are established they choose a stabilized or a high-turnover business model.

Certain industries (insurance claims at the low level, sales, etc) are high-turnover industry and those firms should pay out their asses to exist in such a manner. If the companies were too fucking stupid to budget for that tax correctly (we actually had some turnover related tax budget miscalculations this year, but they were not major)then they deserve to not have extra income to spend on anything but employment.

You choose what type of a business you run. The onus for those expenses and how your money goes is 100% on you and the gov't should charge you for the RIGHT to throw unemployed workers into the populace at a huge rate. Especially because in many industries this is done simple to avoid having to pay high salaries because said business budget weighs the cost of high level employees as greater than the tax costs associated with the insane turnover rate.

Those firms don't want to spend money, forcing them to spend some of what they are whoring by limiting their intellectual (read salary) resources is more than reasonable.

Hell even small business that operate call centers and what not deserve to pay for that right. Having 50+ 25K employees is a right and a concious decision, one with a set attached cost.

I agree with that. What I'm saying is we've reached (or maybe did some time ago) what appears to be critical mass. Inefficient businesses go under or are forced to adapt/merge/sell/etc. Inefficient governments and societies will too. Regardless of their size. Maybe not now or in a decade or even a century, but they do. At some point it has to be addressed (if that's still possible) and you have to take as hard a look at the inefficiencies in social/government programs/spending as businesses do on their expenditures, etc.

To me it seems as if the policy makers keep putting more of a burden on us (workers/employees/citizens/etc) while ignoring their own inefficiencies and spending.

Would a different president change that? I honestly don't know if they would or could. I just know at some point it needs to be considered.

e0y2e3 wrote:Peeker, when companies are established they choose a stabilized or a high-turnover business model.

Certain industries (insurance claims at the low level, sales, etc) are high-turnover industry and those firms should pay out their asses to exist in such a manner. If the companies were too fucking stupid to budget for that tax correctly (we actually had some turnover related tax budget miscalculations this year, but they were not major)then they deserve to not have extra income to spend on anything but employment.

You choose what type of a business you run. The onus for those expenses and how your money goes is 100% on you and the gov't should charge you for the RIGHT to throw unemployed workers into the populace at a huge rate. Especially because in many industries this is done simple to avoid having to pay high salaries because said business budget weighs the cost of high level employees as greater than the tax costs associated with the insane turnover rate.

Those firms don't want to spend money, forcing them to spend some of what they are whoring by limiting their intellectual (read salary) resources is more than reasonable.

Hell even small business that operate call centers and what not deserve to pay for that right. Having 50+ 25K employees is a right and a concious decision, one with a set attached cost.

I agree with that. What I'm saying is we've reached (or maybe did some time ago) what appears to be critical mass. Inefficient businesses go under or are forced to adapt/merge/sell/etc. Inefficient governments and societies will too. Regardless of their size. Maybe not now or in a decade or even a century, but they do. At some point it has to be addressed (if that's still possible) and you have to take as hard a look at the inefficiencies in social/government programs/spending as businesses do on their expenditures, etc.

I agree with that. What I'm saying is we've reached (or maybe did some time ago) what appears to be critical mass. Inefficient businesses go under or are forced to adapt/merge/sell/etc. Inefficient governments and societies will too. Regardless of their size. Maybe not now or in a decade or even a century, but they do. At some point it has to be addressed (if that's still possible) and you have to take as hard a look at the inefficiencies in social/government programs/spending as businesses do on their expenditures, etc.

All empires fall, dude.

Amen. We in that stage or is it fixable? And if it's fixable are we set up to fix it or perpetuate the fall? I guess that's my question.